Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 14th Oct 2007 15:12 UTC
Legal This week's 'big' news on OSNews was about software patents. You know, those things that say you cannot stack four pixels on top of one another unless you pay money to the guy who invented four-pixel-stacks (or the guy who bought the guy who invented four-pixel-stacks). A company called IP Innovation, LLC, has sued Novell and Red Hat for infringement of the company's IP portfolio. Software patents are of course generally completely ridiculous, so I will not focus on that here. I want to focus on something else.
Thread beginning with comment 278181
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Monopolist
by kaiwai on Sun 14th Oct 2007 17:24 UTC in reply to "Monopolist"
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

MS is a convicted monopolist, which is no less powerful now than it was when convicted (insert GWB related tinfoil hat stories here). This is the reason why it's prudent to sniff out an MS connection to this, because MS's track record proves that they will go to any lengths to crush their competition.
Thom, you seem to be trying too hard to play devils advocate in this case (IMO). Assuming that Microsoft is up to no good is in fact usually correct (remember SCO?), and that's not Fanboy-ism/bias of any kind, just looking at the facts.


I agree. When one looks at the facts its hard to avoid the link:

1) Large vendors such as HP, Toshiba, Acer, Lenovo and Dell all announce that they're either planning, testing or offering Linux beyond the server arena.

2) Microsoft can no longer do the old 'strong arm' tactics as they did years ago to OEM vendors. If you can't threaten OEM's - whats to stop Microsoft from at least sowing the seeds of doubt in the marketplace over the so-called 'legality'?

3) Suddenly an unknown patent harvesting firm, chocked to the brim with ex-Microsoft employee's appears threatening *only* *NIX vendors. If these patents were so broad, then come how they haven't attacked Microsoft, Apple or any other vendor?

4) Now don't get me wrong, I don't believe the connection with SCO and Microsoft given that Microsoft needed to licence technology for their Services for UNIX product to improve SYSV compatibility. Even with that being said, it still raises questions as to why they just simply didn't use OpenSolaris code, given it is opensource and available for them to use if they wish. stupidity on Microsofts part on a conspiracy?

Edited 2007-10-14 17:27

Reply Parent Score: 10

RE[2]: Monopolist
by IceCubed on Sun 14th Oct 2007 17:28 in reply to "RE: Monopolist"
IceCubed Member since:
2005-07-01


3) Suddenly an unknown patent harvesting firm, chocked to the brim with ex-Microsoft employee's appears threatening *only* *NIX vendors. If these patents were so broad, then come how they haven't attacked Microsoft, Apple or any other vendor?


They /DID/ sue Apple and Microsoft.
Apple's case was settled out-of-court.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Monopolist
by wirespot on Sun 14th Oct 2007 21:16 in reply to "RE[2]: Monopolist"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Probably Microsoft's too. And you can also add that they seem to be suing Novell now, who is supposed to be playing nice with Microsoft. So how can one still suspect Microsoft is behind this, you'll ask?

Easy. It is THE perfect way of getting friendlies covered and going after the real target: Red Hat. Novell will settle out of court, like Microsoft did, whereas Red Hat will not and can not, as a matter of principle. But they (Microsoft + Novell) will get to claim having been targets, to place themselves above suspicion. Hey, if the killer shot at me too I can't possibly be in on it, right?

Red Hat is the perfect target. All other proeminent Linux-related businesses either made a deal (Novell, Linspire), or are too small to be worth the trouble (should they either pay up or be taken down), or too big to be touched (IBM).

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Monopolist
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 14th Oct 2007 17:31 in reply to "RE: Monopolist"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Suddenly an unknown patent harvesting firm, chocked to the brim with ex-Microsoft employee's appears threatening *only* *NIX vendors. If these patents were so broad, then come how they haven't attacked Microsoft, Apple or any other vendor?


Kaiwai, did you actually read the article? This EXACT SAME COMPANY sued Apple in April 2007 over the EXACT SAME PATENT, as the article explains. In addition, they have sued Microsoft too over another patent - also mentioned in the article.

My conclusion is that you didn't read the article very well, or not at all. Please do so if you comment, it's even in our rules.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Monopolist
by kaiwai on Sun 14th Oct 2007 17:35 in reply to "RE[2]: Monopolist"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Kaiwai, did you actually read the article? This EXACT SAME COMPANY sued Apple in April 2007 over the EXACT SAME PATENT, as the article explains. In addition, they have sued Microsoft too over another patent - also mentioned in the article.

My conclusion is that you didn't read the article very well, or not at all. Please do so if you comment, it's even in our rules.


1) It is 6:32am in the morning - there is no need to be rude. Politely correct what I have said and move on. The reaction you have displayed as if I had just punched your mother in the face.

2) Now that you have corrected me, I understand where you come from in regards to it not being some grand unified conspiracy theory given I have read the article again.

3) The question remains, who is this group; and on what grounds did they acquire these so-called 'patents'?

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[3]: Monopolist
by porcel on Sun 14th Oct 2007 20:18 in reply to "RE[2]: Monopolist"
porcel Member since:
2006-01-28

Let's play the conspiracy card a little more.

It's convenient for them to sue Microsoft. Doing so allows Microsoft to give this "IP Innvation" company a ton of money while providing a perfect alibi.

I am sure they were in fact were given a good amount of money, enough to line up the pockets of the former Microsoft executives while making sure they don't run out of cash in their suits against Novell and Red Hat.

Remember, it's only paranoia if they are not really after you.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: Monopolist
by wirespot on Sun 14th Oct 2007 21:34 in reply to "RE[2]: Monopolist"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Kaiwai, did you actually read the article?


I did, and it made one thing clear. If there was any doubt left whether you're a Microsoft fan and biased in their favor, it's pretty much gone now. I have no other way of explaining why, in the light of everything Microsoft is famous for, you can bury your head in the sand and ask people to just look at the obvious facts, no further, so as to give them the benefit of the doubt.

How can we do that? Microsoft has the means, the history, the strong motive. Red Hat is an obvious target. If Microsoft are half smart we'll never find their prints on the murder weapon, but asking us to not suspect them is too bloody much, to the point of questioning our intelligence.

Occam's razor, hah. It's a reasoning tool. If you apply it to a select narrow set of facts, yeah, I guess it will even point at Microsoft being innocent.

And to go to the trouble to make an "article" of it, too. Using OSNews to promote your bias is pretty low, but trying to impress it upon others is a whole new level of low.

Edited 2007-10-14 21:35

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: Monopolist
by google_ninja on Sun 14th Oct 2007 17:42 in reply to "RE: Monopolist"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

1) While that makes RH competition, that doesn't really serve as a link.

2) Here you have a point, and they have been doing that consistantly ever since the old "Get the Facts" campaign started. Again though, that doesn't prove a link. MS does anything they can nowadays to avoid anti-trust lawsuits.

3) First off, they are hardly unknown, and have been one of the leading companies that engage in this nonsense for quite awhile. Secondly, two former employees is not "Chock full", and thirdly, this company has sued both microsoft and apple before (apple over this very patent), and does not just go after *nix companies.

4) AFAIK, OpenSolaris wasn't ready back then.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Monopolist
by Flatland_Spider on Mon 15th Oct 2007 06:01 in reply to "RE: Monopolist"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

it still raises questions as to why they just simply didn't use OpenSolaris code,


Probably because OpenSolaris wasn't available until 2005, and MS bought a licensed from SCO in 2003.

I'm sure you're right about MS needing a license to actual System V stuff. They could have used something else like *BSD code, but they have the money so why not get the real deal.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Monopolist
by CodeMonkey on Mon 15th Oct 2007 22:33 in reply to "RE: Monopolist"
CodeMonkey Member since:
2005-09-22


3) Suddenly an unknown patent harvesting firm, chocked to the brim with ex-Microsoft employee's appears threatening *only* *NIX vendors. If these patents were so broad, then come how they haven't attacked Microsoft, Apple or any other vendor?


I would hardly call 3 employees "chocked to the brim". In reality they have less than a hand full of ex-Microsoft employees.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Monopolist
by tomcat on Thu 18th Oct 2007 01:19 in reply to "RE: Monopolist"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Suddenly an unknown patent harvesting firm, chocked to the brim with ex-Microsoft employee's appears threatening *only* *NIX vendors. If these patents were so broad, then come how they haven't attacked Microsoft, Apple or any other vendor?

Reread the article. They have. They've sued both Microsoft *and* Apple.

Reply Parent Score: -1